Use Server 2k3 is a desktop OS?

[Doomer]

I'm really tempted to do this. Server 2k3 is blazing fast. Way faster than XP or Vista. Other than the fancy eye candy, which I don;t need or want, it seems to do everything a OS should do. Are there any downsides to using it as a desktop OS?

 

[JonnyBlaze]

i did it for a few years.

only downsides were having to use server versions of defrag or AV programs. not really a downside, just something you should be aware of.

 

[heymrdj]

Alot of services have to be started separately on Win2k3 which are defautly turned off. If you want sound, it will ask you to enable the sound service. Codec support is lacking for videos. Few drivers are signed for it. My Biostar T7025 doesn't have drivers for it. I have to go to Nvidia and download XP drivers for it and make it work (can't use install cd). There's some other things that i'm too tired to point out tongiht. It just makes you work harder to do the same that XP or Vista lets you do.

 

[lonewolf6465]

http://win2k3.msfn.org/

That helped me do it, the only thing that was annoying was getting my webcam to work, I had to get the install from logitech's site instead of my CD. Also I use Trillian (well, I would anyways but) AIM/MSN I know for sure won't install on a server class OS. Other than those two things, I love it.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

http://www.kood.org/win-2003-optimize-tool/

This software will make your life much easier.

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: Doomer
I'm really tempted to do this. Server 2k3 is blazing fast. Way faster than XP or Vista. Other than the fancy eye candy, which I don;t need or want, it seems to do everything a OS should do. Are there any downsides to using it as a desktop OS?

use xp 64bit, its the same kernel as win2k3(on the same service pack schedule, sp1), but built to be a desktop OS.

I got it at an AMD tech tour in 05, and have been running it ever since.. nice clean and fast. Check for driver availability for you hardware first, but after the initial year of release, everything i've ever needed had a xp 64bit driver also.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: Dravic

Originally posted by: Doomer
I'm really tempted to do this. Server 2k3 is blazing fast. Way faster than XP or Vista. Other than the fancy eye candy, which I don;t need or want, it seems to do everything a OS should do. Are there any downsides to using it as a desktop OS?

use xp 64bit, its the same kernel as win2k3(on the same service pack schedule, sp1), but built to be a desktop OS.

I got it at an AMD tech tour in 05, and have been running it ever since.. nice clean and fast. Check for driver availability for you hardware first, but after the initial year of release, everything i've ever needed had a xp 64bit driver also.

Agreed.. I got XP 64bit and it's super stable and runs well.. However, drivers are sometimes hard to get for it - but I didn't have a problem.

 

[IamDavid]

Ran it for a few years as my primary OS. Loved it.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

I ran Windows Server 2003 32-bit for about two years on my desktop and laptop. It was noticeably faster than Windows XP SP2 32-bit especially in boot-up time. You might have better driver compatibility if you run the 32-bit version than XP 64-bit.

Most system-level software such as defragmentation (i.e. Diskeeper) and antivirus have artificial limits that prevent you from installing them on Server OS.

Note: Eset NOD32 v2.70.39 works fine on workstation and Server 2003 (not 2008).